I had no idea Scott Walker was so popular

[Ben Kenobi]

no. you posted some numbers, the onus is on you to provide credible numbers and if necessary back them up with evidence. pulling them out of your backpassage and then saying 'here are some numbers i made up, prove me wrong!' is not an interesting basis for a debate.

The only way to have a constructive disagreement is for you to provide numbers that you do see as 'plausible'. Otherwise, there's simply no point. What, am I supposed to read your mind? You have a critique that is entirely unfounded.

[kentonio]

Except that it does, and there are many examples of precisely this. And we haven't even gotten to the fact that almost all of the wage increases associated with the minimum wage increase goes to people who aren't even making minimum wage. Which is why they support policies that hurt poor people, but help them.

Provide some evidence that the introduction of a minimum wage has caused mass unemployment or STFU.

[C0ckney]

The only way to have a constructive disagreement is for you to provide numbers that you do see as 'plausible'. Otherwise, there's simply no point. What, am I supposed to read your mind? You have a critique that is entirely unfounded.

there is no basis for constructive disagreement because you simply made up your numbers.

[Ben Kenobi]

Provide some evidence that the introduction of a minimum wage has caused mass unemployment or STFU.

That wasn't even my argument. Call me when you actually bother reading my posts.

[Ben Kenobi]

there is no basis for constructive disagreement because you simply made up your numbers.

Then you should have no difficulty providing reasonable figures to back up your argument.

No, your objection is because I hit a chord and you have zero evidence backing up your claims that minimum wage increases are actually beneficial to poor people.

[kentonio]

That wasn't even my argument. Call me when you actually bother reading my posts.

Whilst reading your posts is always painful, I did actually bother. Your argument appeared to be that raising minimum wage could lead to job losses. The same argument that was used against the introduction of minimum wage laws. You believe one, you believe both, they're the same thing.

[Ben Kenobi]

Your argument appeared to be that raising minimum wage could lead to job losses.

Then you have serious reading comprehension issues.

My precise argument is thus. Someone working 40 hours a week who's marginal labor value is close to what he earns at 5 dollars an hour - isn't going to see 40 hours a week of work at 7. Instead - they are going to see 20 hours a week at 7, to compensate for the time that their labour is actually worth that much during the day.

Which is what most businesses do when the minimum wage goes up - they cut back on the hours that staff works to save labor costs. In this case - the worker who was making 200/week and 800 a month is now making 140 a week and 560 a month. A huge difference. Instead of helping the poor - you've taken away over 1/4 of their pay.

[C0ckney]

I don't think you're using a plausible estimate of the elasticity of labor demand.

.

[C0ckney]

Then you should have no difficulty providing reasonable figures to back up your argument.

No, your objection is because I hit a chord and you have zero evidence backing up your claims that minimum wage increases are actually beneficial to poor people.

i have provided evidence in this thread about the effects of the minimum wage in the UK.

you have invented some numbers and then spent several posts asking why no one wants to discuss your made up numbers.

[kentonio]

Then you have serious reading comprehension issues.

My precise argument is thus. Someone working 40 hours a week who's marginal labor value is close to what he earns at 5 dollars an hour - isn't going to see 40 hours a week of work at 7. Instead - they are going to see 20 hours a week at 7, to compensate for the time that their labour is actually worth that much during the day.

Which is what most businesses do when the minimum wage goes up - they cut back on the hours that staff works to save labor costs. In this case - the worker who was making 200/week and 800 a month is now making 140 a week and 560 a month. A huge difference. Instead of helping the poor - you've taken away over 1/4 of their pay.

Ie, exactly the same damn argument, which hasn't held to up examination whenever the minimum wage is implemented.

[giblets]

Then you have serious reading comprehension issues.

My precise argument is thus. Someone working 40 hours a week who's marginal labor value is close to what he earns at 5 dollars an hour - isn't going to see 40 hours a week of work at 7. Instead - they are going to see 20 hours a week at 7, to compensate for the time that their labour is actually worth that much during the day.

Which is what most businesses do when the minimum wage goes up - they cut back on the hours that staff works to save labor costs. In this case - the worker who was making 200/week and 800 a month is now making 140 a week and 560 a month. A huge difference. Instead of helping the poor - you've taken away over 1/4 of their pay.

Okay. My argument is that they will have their hours cut back to 35 hours a week and so they will be earning $245 a week working 35 hours instead of earning $200 a week working 40 hours. Extra money and free time. So far we've provided an equal amount of evidence for our positions (zero evidence) so it looks like our arguments are equally valid.

[DinoDoc]

On the original topic: Scott Walker leads new Wisconsin recall poll

[Elok]

Ie, exactly the same damn argument, which hasn't held to up examination whenever the minimum wage is implemented.

That argument doesn't sound like it'd go very far even in the abstract; the owner of the Seven-Eleven or other crap-job-provider needs to have a certain minimum number of warm bodies to keep his store running a certain number of hours. If he can cut back staff hours without sacrificing too much service quality, he'll do it regardless of how much they were making (Lord knows they do IRL). If he can't, he won't, because a poorly run store will drive away customers. And if he cuts so many employee hours that he can't operate the store during profitable times, what has he gained? That's just a crappy way to run a business, or so it seems to me.

Now, I do sometimes wonder if the minimum wage might not cause some sort of inflation by increasing the value of crummy labor, which feels (to my terrible economic intuition) like it ought to happen. I mean, if all the McDonald's workers are making X + 1 where they would normally be making X, doesn't that get passed on to the final product? And given the number of minimum-wage jobs, does that have some kind of final effect on the value of a dollar? If someone can explain to me, using the economic equivalent of "See Spot Run" language, why it does or doesn't, that would be awesome.

[giblets]

Now, I do sometimes wonder if the minimum wage might not cause some sort of inflation by increasing the value of crummy labor, which feels (to my terrible economic intuition) like it ought to happen. I mean, if all the McDonald's workers are making X + 1 where they would normally be making X, doesn't that get passed on to the final product? And given the number of minimum-wage jobs, does that have some kind of final effect on the value of a dollar? If someone can explain to me, using the economic equivalent of "See Spot Run" language, why it does or doesn't, that would be awesome.

Remember the overall level of inflation is determined by the monetary policy of the central bank. So goods and services that require a relatively large amount of unskilled labor will inflate faster than the overall inflation rate while goods and services require relatively little unskilled labor will inflate slower than the overall inflation rate. Consumption patterns will shift slightly from the more expensive goods to the less expensive ones.

Think of it as a cartel: if OPEC raises the oil price, it has to sell somewhat less oil, but the demand for oil isn't very responsive to a price change so it gains more money. The oil price increase can create inflation, but the central bank can keep the overall inflation rate the same by tightening a bit so that everything other than oil increases in price a little less.

[Kuciwalker]

The Fed can't fully offset all fiscal policy, in the case of slightly wonky things like price controls. e.g. if Congress set the minimum wage to $100/hour the Fed couldn't really do anything to prevent a manyfold increase in the price level.

Also, in your scenario to push down inflation the Fed would have to create unemployment. That argues strongly against raising the minimum wage.